Dear all,
The lack of transparency around the Wikimedia Endowment is reaching new
levels. A week ago, Jayde Antonio posted the minutes for the January 2023
Endowment board meeting on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment/Meetings/January_19,_2023
These minutes are an
Thank you Jaime for this response and for the commitment on making a
further update next quarter.
Lodewijk
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 9:39 AM Jaime Villagomez
wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> We have posted an update on the Endowment talk page [
>
Hello Everyone,
We have posted an update on the Endowment talk page [
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Response_to_off-wiki_question_on_mailing_list_about_timeline_for_the_move_of_Endowment_assets_out_of_Tides
].
Best Regards,
Jaime
Jaime Villagomez
Chief Financial
Dear all,
A full year has now passed since the WMF received IRS approval for its new,
transparent 501(c)(3) organisation, set up to take over the Wikimedia
Endowment and end almost a decade of financial non-transparency.[1]
Let us not forget – Caitlin Virtue told us over two years ago, in April
...
> It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a deliberate
> and thoughtful manner. Everyone can take a deep breath.
> Risker/Anne
The WMF has never claimed that setting out a fixed timetable that
their CEO and the Endowment "agents" can be held accountable to is
either
Anne,
It's now transpired that the WMF actually received IRS approval for the new
non-profit organisation intended to take over the Endowment over eight
months ago, in June 2022.[1] The October 2022 announcement that approval
had been received was made four months after the fact.
Two years ago,
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 09:26, wrote:
>
> Why didn't WMF do the groundwork for transferring the endowment funds from
> Tides to a WMF 501(c)3 given that there were over SIX long years to make
> such plans?
>
> Why does WMF STILL not know how to effect this transfer or when it will be
> completed,
Hello, Lodewijk (Anders).
Let me preface this by saying that I am responding to you with the benefit of
years of IRL experience and education in the area of financial due diligence. I
am aware of the "fallacy of appeal to authority". I am not doing that. In this
case, "authority" would be
Thank you Catlin,
yours and Julia's explanations here and on Meta are enough for me.
The Rai Tre broadcast program mentioned in the previous discussion talked
not only about money, and given that tomorrow is the last day to vote on
the strengthened guidelines of the UCoC and in some local
Dear all,
I've been asked to explain what the issue with the Endowment is. Here is a
recap:
Over the past seven years, WMF staff have collected donations from the
public to build an Endowment that stood at $113.4 million a year ago (the
most recent update available).
The important thing that I
Dear Caitlin,
Thank you for the clarification. Is there any chance we might see audited
financial statements covering the Endowment's past seven years, in a format
comparable to the annually published, audited financial statements
detailing the revenue and expenses of the Foundation,[1] and
Thank you!!
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 5:55 PM Christophe Henner
wrote:
> Thanks Caitlin!!!
>
> Sounds like that answers perfectly the original questions and things are
> going the way we were told, it just takes times :)
>
> Thanks again and have a good day!
>
> Christophe
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
Thanks Caitlin!!!Sounds like that answers perfectly the original questions and things are going the way we were told, it just takes times :)Thanks again and have a good day!ChristopheSent from my iPhoneOn Jan 27, 2023, at 10:19 PM, Caitlin Virtue wrote:?Hi Christophe,This thread has circled
Hi Christophe,
This thread has circled around the main question of will any decisions
around the endowment be transparent. The answer is yes.
The question of transparency has also become conflated with the mechanism
of how the money is held. The answer here is that we are working to
transition
To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again
>
>
>
> It looks like what Wikimedia is saying is they gave a (typically)
> confusing response to the Italian journalists which they (in good faith)
> misreported.
>
>
>
> Wikimedia c
...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 January 2023 17:26To: Wikimedia Mailing ListSubject: [Wikimedia-
l] Re: The Endowment, again It looks like what Wikimedia is saying is they gave a (typically) confusing response to the Italian journalists which they (in good faith) misreported. Wikimedia communications would
Yes, but sometimes a yes/no answer does not reasonably represent reality.
Cheers, Peter
From: The Cunctator [mailto:cuncta...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 January 2023 17:26
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again
It looks like what Wikimedia is saying
It looks like what Wikimedia is saying is they gave a (typically) confusing
response to the Italian journalists which they (in good faith) misreported.
Wikimedia communications would benefit from a willingness to answer yes/no
questions with a yes or no, imho.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 7:24 AM
Lodewijk,
The question at the top of that talk page section on Meta[1] is:
"Is the money still with Tides?"
The answer seems to be "Yes".
If so, then the next question is:
If the money is still with Tides, then why did the WMF tell the Italian
journalists that their information was incorrect
Hi Lane,
maybe I'm just reading this differently, but doesn't "we are in the
process" typically mean "no, not yet. But we are going towards that new
situation"? If you don't feel this answers your question, it might be
beneficial to spell out the question a bit more explicitly. Re-reading the
Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on
Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have
not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.
A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for
any logical reader. The huge amount of money
Hi All,
We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1]
Regards,
Julia
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides
?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Dear Sam,
>
> Money cannot be in two places at the
Dear Sam,
Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been moved,
or it has not been moved.
The Rai journalists specifically asked *"Why the Wikimedia Foundation
didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?" *
Here is the complete question again:
Q: *The Wikimedia Endowment is
I hope the always-welcome discussion here about non-profit logistics and
online civility doesn't derail an answer to Andreas's question, which is
important and remains unanswered.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:36 PM Samuel Klein wrote:
> The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both
The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both true, and
what one might expect from governance decisions to date.
WME got its 501c3 status last year, expanded its Board, and is working on
its structure. It will start emitting 501c3 reports this year. It will
need staff to take
Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions, then by
definition, one of them *has* to be substantially misleading as anyone who
reads it would get the opposite of the true situation. If Andreas had an
intent to be hostile, he could have said lie, which he did not.
Dan
On Thu, Jan
Hi Andreas,
I will support the underlying questions of this type (it's helpful to have
conversations about our organizational structure, and how it works -
clarifications are great!) but I would really hope that you could leave
aside insinuations of the type "If it isn't, and the money is still
27 matches
Mail list logo
